Posted on 11/16/2015 7:08:50 AM PST by Salvation
I was out on the preaching circuit this past week and spoke at five parishes (including my own) on the biblical vision of Holy Matrimony (marriage) as set forth by God and the Church. The talks were sponsored by the pro-life group Defend Life.
While I cannot succinctly reproduce the talk in today's blog, I spoke from notes that are available here and here. A video of one of the talks will be posted soon.
I heard a consistent concern voiced by those in attendance that pulpits have been too silent on this critical matter of marriage, and by extension, sexuality and the family. Since I don't get around to many other parishes on Sundays, and I don't have statistics or polls to consult, I can only assume that this complaint is widespread. That said, nothing prevents a Catholic layperson from breaking out the Catechism and teaching his or her children and grandchildren. There seems to be a lot of waiting around for the Church to "do something" regarding ignorance of the faith. Pulpits must get better, but so must adult religious education. Parents, too, must actively seek out sources for instruction so that they can learn and hand on the faith. I recommend two places, among many, to start: The Institute of Catholic Culture and Catholic Answers.
Another common question that came from distressed parents at the talks was how they could counteract the bewitching effect of modern culture on their children (30 and under) when it comes to the redefinition of marriage. Many of their young-adult children see "no problem" with same-sex unions (a.k.a. gay "marriage") and parents wondered how to counter this position.
My recommendation would be to use the "Socratic method.†This method, rooted in the teaching style of Socrates, uses questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw a person to find answers by examining his own premises. Rather than simply refuting the position of their young-adult child, it is often more helpful for parents to ask questions that permit him or her to see for himself/herself the faultiness and/or emptiness of the logic underlying this modern thinking. Today it seems that logic, critical thinking, and proper premises are often lacking.
The additional value of the Socratic method is that it requires the “accuser†(the one who wishes to set aside biblical and Catholic teaching) to account for his view rather than the faithful Catholic to mount a complete defense. The method also involves listening respectfully as the accuser speaks.
Consider a scenario in which an adult son or daughter makes some remark that indicates opposition to the Church teaching on traditional marriage. You might ask,
Do you oppose the fact that the Church upholds only traditional Marriage and rejects same-sex “marriage�
Assuming the response is yes (or some form thereof), follow up with this question:
How do you define marriage?
Now just wait as long as necessary. Give no assistance, just wait patiently. Let the question hang there. It is quite likely that he or she will struggle to answer the question because those who have redefined marriage have not really redefined it at all; they have simply made it increasingly devoid of content. Saying what marriage isn’t is not the same as saying what it is.
The response might be something like this: "It’s when two people love each other and want to be together." You might then pose some of the following questions:
Could you be more specific? For example, why do you say two people? Could it be more than two? Why or why not?
Or,
When you say, "two people" do you mean any two people? For example, what if the two people are related, such as being brother and sister, or two brothers, or a father and his? Must the two people who love each other have to be unrelated? If so, why?
Or,
You say that they love each other. Must this be the case? Are there other reasons they could marry other than love?
These are not intended to be merely "gotcha" questions. The purpose is to force the dissenter to stake out a cogent position by carefully thinking through his premises and where they lead. If the dissenter responds to the above questions with some limits, it forces him to consider why those limits make sense while others (such as one man and one woman) do not.
The Church knows what marriage is and so does God, who taught us clearly (in Genesis 2 and other places) that marriage is one man for one woman in a life-long, committed, and faithful relationship, open to the procreation and rearing of children.
This traditional definition is clear, sets limits, and has been the way marriage has been understood for thousands of years. Those who wish to remove these limits must account for what restrictions are left and why they think those should be kept rather than also set aside.
Just ask these questions. Wait for answers. Wait as long as necessary and don’t help. Let them think through it and become more responsible for what they think and the implications that emerge from it.
In this video from Catholic Answers, Trent Horn makes significant use of the Socratic method. In this case the topic happens to be atheism, but it gives a good idea illustration of how the method might work. Atheism is a complex topic. Defining marriage is far less complex since the field of the discussion is more focused.
I also wonder whether you also exclude anyone who has had heterosexual sex outside of marriage
Unmarrieds shacking up do not trash the concept of marriage...
Or whether you ask them whether they have master-bated in the past few weeks
and neither do masturbaters...but boys who marry boys however, are making a strong commentary against traditional matrimony...
I’ve found that the vast majority of people who broach the subject of redefined marriage have no interest in a real discussion and no ability to entertain reason. Cut them off immediately, even relatives if necessary.
I'd ask them by what medical testing method this birth defect was discovered. Dollars to donuts there was absolutely NO medical/genetic testing done to determine a "transgender" diagnosis.
She, of course, was a lesbian who decided to do The Full Monty. My friend expected me to jump with joy and I didn’t. I told him it was ridiculous and that I had no intention of honoring her choice. I just will avoid her like the plague!
If a lesbian becomes a transgender man, won’t all of the other lesbians have to stop being attracted to ‘him’ out of fairness to the ‘authentic female’ lesbians?
???
O2
That one really did make me LOL.
First the liberties say you can marry the same sex, if they consent. Then they say you can marry family members! And now they are arguing that you can even marry people who dissent??? When did that stop being rape?
I avoid all controversial discussions.
I state my opinion,let people state theirs,and that’s that.
.
The actionable word is obviously ‘discuss.’ As I mention in another comment, those who want to “duke it out” over this issue are almost always those who want to wave it in dissenters’ faces and belittle them as ancient-valued ‘bigots.’ Such people are fine in my home as long as they keep the conversation neutral and family-friendly, which absolutely, positively rules out any conversation regarding the “sin which cries to heaven for vengeance.”
When our daughter was still in the house we used to have a lot of people over for the holidays.
After spending some six or eight times at our house, an old queen and his son finally figured out that we were conservative. Future invitations were freely given, but they never came again.
So who were the intolerant ones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.